Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Organization context added #234

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Organization context added #234

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

JDFleury
Copy link
Contributor

@JDFleury JDFleury commented Oct 3, 2024

Added organization which will be used in UserProfile entity, will mimic the group assigned to the user in Keycloak. Also added isAvailableForOrganization which replaces category. isAvailableForOrganization will be on the Key entity to dictate which organizations have access at which keys.

@JDFleury JDFleury requested review from bobeal and junjou October 3, 2024 07:34
@JDFleury JDFleury self-assigned this Oct 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@junjou junjou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess for the moment we will just manage these organisation properties through postman. It's fine for the testing phase but at the end the client will want to manage that by himself easily. Will it be possible ?

@JDFleury
Copy link
Contributor Author

JDFleury commented Oct 3, 2024

I guess for the moment we will just manage these organisation properties through postman. It's fine for the testing phase but at the end the client will want to manage that by himself easily. Will it be possible ?

Yes I believe it will be possible for the Admins to change these values. My idea was to add this functionality in the single Key page. This feature won't be available for V1, but definitely a possibility for the future.

"keyNumber": "https://vocab.egm.io/keyNumber",
"name": "https://schema.org/name",
"opensGate": "https://vocab.egm.io/opensGate",
"organization": "https://vocab.egm.io/organization",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it is a type, not an attribute? if so, it should be Organization.

and this one is better suited: https://schema.org/Organization

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

also, is it a group or an organization?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Both I suppose. They used the terminology "Organism". I can swap to Organization entities. Would be better to have them separate anyways for managing them (adding, deleting, updating)

"type": "Property",
"value": "Fire Department"
}
"isAvailableForOrganization": [
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if it is a multi-instance attribute, you have to use datasetId to distinguish each instance

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Understood

Comment on lines +12 to +15
"organization": {
"type": "Property",
"value": "Agglomération Provence Verte"
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if groups and groups membership are managed in KC, you can't duplicate them here (actually, Stellio already manages this info)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We do this for SMBT though, for "Conch" & "Autre". That way can verify who has what access on the front via Admin account. For example, Admin user is approving an Authorization which has a relationship of "givenTo" which is a UserProfile id. That way we can then download the UserProfile and check which keys they have access to. Is there another way to achieve this?

Comment on lines +26 to +27
"type": "Property",
"value": "Agglomération Provence Verte"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would instead see this as a relationship

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. Will update with new Organization type

@JDFleury JDFleury marked this pull request as draft October 3, 2024 11:38
@JDFleury
Copy link
Contributor Author

JDFleury commented Oct 3, 2024

Converting to draft until further decisions have been made on the data flow of the project. Things should be more clear after the meeting with client on 9/10/2024.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants